Upgrade still based on bedroom size

[Mary W]

I saw an earlier post that someone had been upgraded from a one bedroom deluxe to a one bedroom presidential unit (which seemed to be a change from what we had gotten used to when the new website rolled out.) That was not my experience this morning.

I booked a one bedroom deluxe at the Wyndham Canterbury. A one bedroom presidential and a two bedroom presidential were also available. The only upgrade available was to a two bedroom presidential. I booked that and then went back in just to test the upgrade rules. For the same dates, both a one bedroom deluxe and a one bedroom presidential unit were available. But the one bedroom deluxe would not upgrade to the presidential unit.

Since the website is so glitchy, I am hesitant to draw any conclusions for all of Wyndham. But at least this morning, for Canterbury, the upgrade based on bedroom size still seems to be the case.

 

[Braindead]

The other post you refer to. Was a 1 Studio to a 1 BDR. Presidential. Maybe the Studio is programmed as 0 or no Bedrooms

 

[Avislo]

Not the same thing as you found but it is similar to the extent that this reservation went from a 1 bedroom oceanview to a one bedroom oceanfront. This was a upgrade based on view and not room size. The other option was to a 2 bedroom.

Wyndham Vacation Resorts Towers on the Grove at North Myrtle Beach
North Myrtle Beach, South Carolina

• CHECK-IN Jan 16, 2018 4pm
  
  
• CHECK OUT Jan 19, 2018 10am
  
  
• PRICE
  MORE
  30,000 15,000 Points

• UNIT TYPE 1 Bedroom Oceanfront
  
  
• Managed By Wyndham
  
  
• 
  
• UPGRADE Upgraded - Jan 15, 2018
  

 

[Braindead]

Not the same thing as you found but it is similar to the extent that this reservation went from a 1 bedroom oceanview to a one bedroom oceanfront. This was a upgrade based on view and not room size. The other option was to a 2 bedroom.

Wyndham Vacation Resorts Towers on the Grove at North Myrtle Beach
North Myrtle Beach, South Carolina

• CHECK-IN Jan 16, 2018 4pm
  
  
• CHECK OUT Jan 19, 2018 10am
  
  
• PRICE
  MORE
  30,000 15,000 Points

• UNIT TYPE 1 Bedroom Oceanfront
  
  
• Managed By Wyndham
  
  
• 
  
• UPGRADE Upgraded - Jan 15, 2018

Better view has been an upgrade option since day 1 of the auto upgrade. Nothing has changed. [Comment removed by Moderator]

 

[ecwinch]

Better view has been an upgrade option since day 1 of the auto upgrade. Nothing has changed. Just a wasted post

Then be an adult and just ignore it. People make posts that don't add value to the conversation all the time. No harm, no foul.

This is starting to be like driving cross-country and having a kid in the back seat yelling "he is on my side of the car, he is touching me, ..."

 

[Braindead]

Then be an adult and just ignore it. People make posts that don't add value to the conversation all the time. No harm, no foul.

This is starting to be like driving cross-country and having a kid in the back seat yelling "he is on my side of the car, he is touching me, ..."

I started my ignore list. I think you are only emboldening the individual to post more !!!!

 

[ecwinch]

I started my ignore list. I think you are only emboldening the individual to post more !!!!

We can cross that bridge when we come to it. But based on the reports to the moderators, the hyper-sensitivity is more disruptive than the unnecessary posts.

 

[wjappraise]

We can cross that bridge when we come to it. But based on the reports to the moderators, the hyper-sensitivity is more disruptive than the unnecessary posts.

Is there a way to see how many members have Avislo on their ignore list? This might shed some light on what the real problem here is. And maybe compare that number to those of us who have posted anti-Avislo posts. Don't forget to include the other logins that Robert has used over the years.

 

[Braindead]

Is there a way to see how many members have Avislo on their ignore list? This might shed some light on what the real problem here is. And maybe compare that number to those of us who have posted anti-Avislo posts. Don't forget to include the other logins that Robert has used over the years.

Seems to be more important to feel sorry and to protect a certain individual.
Than to protect the integrity and quality of TUG !!!

 

[ecwinch]

Seems to be more important to feel sorry and to protect a certain individual.
Than to protect the integrity and quality of TUG !!!

It is about protecting the integrity of TUG as a place where posters are treated with courtesy and respect, and not harassed. As dictated by the Rules you agreed to when you became a member:

Be Courteous

As we read and respond to others, disagreements are inevitable. Differing points of view are welcomed, and indeed the bbs would be a dull place without them. All users are expected and required to express their disagreements civilly. Refrain from name calling and behavior lectures. Personal attacks will not be tolerated and repeated offenses could get you banned from the bbs. Lively discussion is what the board is all about, but that is no excuse for boorish behavior or bad manners. We are assumed to all be adults. If you don't like a particular thread, stop reading it!

 

[wjappraise]

It is about protecting the integrity of TUG as a place where posters are treated with courtesy and respect, and not harassed. As dictated by the Rules you agreed to when you became a member:

Be Courteous

As we read and respond to others, disagreements are inevitable. Differing points of view are welcomed, and indeed the bbs would be a dull place without them. All users are expected and required to express their disagreements civilly. Refrain from name calling and behavior lectures. Personal attacks will not be tolerated and repeated offenses could get you banned from the bbs. Lively discussion is what the board is all about, but that is no excuse for boorish behavior or bad manners. We are assumed to all be adults. If you don't like a particular thread, stop reading it!

Can we get the numbers of the silent majority who have blocked Avislo? It's the elephant in the room that should not be ignored. You may not be getting as many complaints about his posts as many long time users (your backbone) have him blocked and are tired of flagging his posts knowing nothing will happen.

If that can't/won't be provided can we go back to posting "thumbs up guy" after every inane or inaccurate comment that Avislo posts? That at least flags the casual user that something is amiss and prevents that user from being misled. Isn't that a necessary protection?

Is it me, or are inaccurate and misleading posts allowed, even encouraged, but posts that call them out are disallowed and the posters get chided and reprimanded? If there was an even handed approach here I believe we would be better served. If you disagree please let me know and I will share prior posts that evidence such. And it's not just braindead who does so.

This has gone on for years with Robert under a litany of user names.

 

[tschwa2]

While I think some of his posts are misleading and confusing or wrong, there are plenty that will call him out on it. In this particular instance, I don't think there was anything wrong with pointing out the view upgrade (in the same size unit) because 90% of the upgrade topics are about size only and there are some that may not have known or forgotten about the view upgrade at resorts with a view. So in my opinion not a wasted post- the calling out of that post was a wasted post as AVislo specifically mentioned that it wasn't the same but for informational purposes.

 

[comicbookman]

While I think some of his posts are misleading and confusing or wrong, there are plenty that will call him out on it. In this particular instance, I don't think there was anything wrong with pointing out the view upgrade (in the same size unit) because 90% of the upgrade topics are about size only and there are some that may not have known or forgotten about the view upgrade at resorts with a view. So in my opinion not a wasted post- the calling out of that post was a wasted post as AVislo specifically mentioned that it wasn't the same but for informational purposes.

The problem is after all his misleading, and outright wrong posts, a lot of us have developed a low threshold where he is concerned. I for one blocked him some time ago, but that just causes disruption to many threads. I think you would see more complaints if you count blocking as a complaint. In the past, complaints about him have had NO effect, so many of us have given up. It does greatly diminish the utility of TUG to Wyndham owners.

 

[Jan M.]

Ron P. you are needed back on the job! We've come to rely on Ron and a few OP as valuable and accurate sources of information. Not everyone who posts falls in that same category. I am comfortable saying this without worrying about being considered a bully because I've been corrected about the terminology I've used or something I've said in a post myself. I try to make sure that I respond acknowledging my error or mistaken line of thinking as I think it helps create a healthy climate for our dialogues. I think it is a good thing when new people and infrequent visitors can see that we have members who make an effort to ensure the accuracy of what is posted but that making an occasional slip up isn't the end of the world.

All this has made me think a little more about the content of posts. Mine and others.

The bulk of the people here on TUG know a little less than I do, as much as I do, or more than I do about the Wyndham system and using it. We are interested in hearing each other's experiences, refining and expanding on what we know and what is new or anticipated with Wyndham. Most people in these three categories sincerely just want to help each other and share information. The rest of the people on TUG who aren't in those three categories are the newbies and occasional visitors. As OP have in the past pointed out, the newbies and occasional visitors can only handle/process a limited amount of information at a time. Posts that misinform, distract or confuse them aren't helpful and can actually discourage them from thinking they can ever learn what they need to know to become comfortable with using the Wyndham system. Nor is there any value in posting the same off base, nonsensical stuff that has been posted previously and validly refuted by others.

Sometimes our posts fall more into the category of chatting or a tangent on the subject of the thread but even when I was a newbie myself I didn't have a problem with that. Many times I learned something from them that I hadn't thought of yet and added it to of my list of things to learn more about. In time with help from the people who spoke up I learned who always seem to have an agenda or self serving motivation for what they posted. Some people just aren't comfortable with conflict or confrontation even when it is completely justified and necessary; keeping the peace is paramount to them. Then there are the others who feel the need and/or obligation to speak up. For my part I can only say that I'm grateful to the people who speak up, they are what keep TUG a truly invaluable asset to all of us. I know and truly appreciate how much I have learned from TUG over the years I've belonged!

 

[wjappraise]

The problem is after all his misleading, and outright wrong posts, a lot of us have developed a low threshold where he is concerned. I for one blocked him some time ago, but that just causes disruption to many threads. I think you would see more complaints if you count blocking as a complaint. In the past, complaints about him have had NO effect, so many of us have given up. It does greatly diminish the utility of TUG to Wyndham owners.

Bingo! Exactly identifies the problem.

Moderator - the tolerance level for Avislo has diminished because it appears NOTHING is being done. If you consistently corrected him or called him out with the same fervor used for rebuking Braindead, we would feel you are on the watch. And then no one would feel the need to go vigilante on his posts.

Can you at least consider placing a disclaimer on his errant posts?

 

[wjappraise]

Ron P. you are needed back on the job! We've come to rely on Ron and a few OP as valuable and accurate sources of information.

I think it is a good thing when new people and infrequent visitors can see that we have members who make an effort to ensure the accuracy of what is posted....

Posts that misinform, distract or confuse them aren't helpful and can actually discourage them from thinking they can ever learn what they need to know to become comfortable with using the Wyndham system. Nor is there any value in posting the same off base, nonsensical stuff that has been posted previously and validly refuted by others.

For my part I can only say that I'm grateful to the people who speak up, they are what keep TUG a truly invaluable asset to all of us.

Well said Jan.

Members - please review the prior exchanges Ron had with Avislo/RLongwell/LCL and whatever login he assumed. Ron did a great job of refuting the errant information, protecting the integrity of the forum.

 

[paxsarah]

I find it ironic that this heated discussion is taking place in a thread where Avislo posted correct information, and which could have been avoided completely if the post in response to him hadn't added the unnecessary snipe, "Just a wasted post."

If I were going to choose a hill to die on with regard to this poster, I would at least make it one where his post was undeniably incorrect.

 

[Jan M.]

[Post removed by moderator]

 

[ecwinch]

I think some here are missing the forest for the trees.

On one hand we have an individual who frequently posts, and at times their posts add little value to the conversation or are hard to understand, and can sometimes be inaccurate. Behaviors that while undesirable given their frequency, do not violate TUG rules.

On the other hand we have a small group of individuals who have expressed disdain for that poster and are clearly violating TUG rules. And continue to do so despite repeated warnings of moderators. And their rule violations have resulted in multiple reports to the Moderators.

Their justification for violating TUG rules is that they feel they are protecting the integrity of TUG, and disagree with how moderators are handling the situation. Completely ignoring the fact that their vigilantism is becoming a bigger problem than the poster they disagree with.

Given those facts, I think we all know where this is headed. To avoid that outcome, I ask that everyone take a step back from the keyboard. Because continued violations of TUG rules will not be tolerated. Going forward, I will edit your post to remove the verbiage where you cannot be courteous to your fellow TUG member, and issue a final warning. Ignoring that warning will result in suspension from TUG. I will be sending out PM's to the individuals involved shortly.

As always, those who disagree are free to message TUGBrian.

 

[Nomad34]

The other post you refer to. Was a 1 Studio to a 1 BDR. Presidential. Maybe the Studio is programmed as 0 or no Bedrooms

I booked a studio at Panama City and was upgraded to a one bedroom. I had hoped for a deluxe or 2 bedroom which was what I was used to but under this new system things are different. Hopefully my deluxe in smoky mountain will upgrade to 2 as that might be the next size since I don't usually get presidential. But who knows!!

 

[ausman]

I think some here are missing the forest for the trees.

On one hand we have an individual who frequently posts, and at times their posts add little value to the conversation or are hard to understand, and can sometimes be inaccurate. Behaviors that while undesirable given their frequency, do not violate TUG rules.

Eric,

If there is going to be a pissing match over an individual who frequently posts nonsense and inaccurate information and a significant number of other posters object to this then I fail to see how you can defend that behaviour.

He has been doing this since at least 2011 on TUG and before that for a couple of years on another Wyndham board. The usual behavior is that objections are raised and he then posts under another screen name until that is rendered useless and the merry go round continues.

I think you may not have the benefit of the knowledge of past behavior here and although Robert may be taking his meds now I disagree with your moderation on this matter. I for one would encourage Robert to assume another screen name so we can all resume the merry go round game.

 

[comicbookman]

I think some here are missing the forest for the trees.

On one hand we have an individual who frequently posts, and at times their posts add little value to the conversation or are hard to understand, and can sometimes be inaccurate. Behaviors that while undesirable given their frequency, do not violate TUG rules.

The problem appears to be clear in the above quote. That is a gross simplification and inaccurate description of this individual's behavior on this board. I would argue that this poster carelessly posts information, clearly makes stuff up and in general disrupts almost every thread that they post in. As I stated earlier, blocking him only makes following threads harder. This poster has single handedly reduced the utility of TUG to me and, I am sure, to others. If that is not a violation of the current rules, then the rules need to be changed. Because of this poster, I check in on TUG far less often than I used to.

 

[chapjim]

Not the same thing as you found but it is similar to the extent that this reservation went from a 1 bedroom oceanview to a one bedroom oceanfront. This was a upgrade based on view and not room size. The other option was to a 2 bedroom.

Wyndham Vacation Resorts Towers on the Grove at North Myrtle Beach
North Myrtle Beach, South Carolina

• CHECK-IN Jan 16, 2018 4pm
  
  
• CHECK OUT Jan 19, 2018 10am
  
  
• PRICE
  MORE
  30,000 15,000 Points

• UNIT TYPE 1 Bedroom Oceanfront
  
  
• Managed By Wyndham
  
  
• 
  
• UPGRADE Upgraded - Jan 15, 2018

Ocean Boulevard may be the worst (i.e., most difficult) in this respect. An upgrade can be for number of bedrooms, deluxe to presidential, view (land view to ocean view, ocean view to oceanfront), lower level to upper level. The number of combinations is daunting and trying to figure out what is the least expensive unit needed to upgrade to what you want is tedious at best.

Also, an upgrade for one characteristic may eliminate the others. Not sure I'm saying that well. Let's say upgrades are available for view and level and there is one unit that is an upgrade for both view and level. Most likely, the only options will be an upgrade for a better view or higher level but the oceanfront upper level unit will not be available.

 

[Jan M.]

Ocean Boulevard may be the worst (i.e., most difficult) in this respect. An upgrade can be for number of bedrooms, deluxe to presidential, view (land view to ocean view, ocean view to oceanfront), lower level to upper level. The number of combinations is daunting and trying to figure out what is the least expensive unit needed to upgrade to what you want is tedious at best.

Also, an upgrade for one characteristic may eliminate the others. Not sure I'm saying that well. Let's say upgrades are available for view and level and there is one unit that is an upgrade for both view and level. Most likely, the only options will be an upgrade for a better view or higher level but the oceanfront upper level unit will not be available.

We've stayed at Ocean Boulevard quite a number of times and I agree with you that it is the most confusing resort I've experienced when it comes to trying to figure out what you are booking and upgrading to also. You didn't mention that there are 4 different buildings at Ocean Boulevard, each with their own point charts, and the upgrades can change the building you are in too. I counted and there are 24 different unit choices you can book there and that is without counting the accessible units.

The upgrades are still wonky and not consistent, even at the same resort. Just this week I was trying to book a couple of additional nights for an upcoming stay. I selected the studio expecting it to upgrade to the one bedroom deluxe that was available. This was what I had booked and upgraded to for the other part of our stay. Btw both the studio and the one bedroom deluxe at this resort sleep 4 with a king bed and queen sleeper sofa. This time it skipped right over the one bedroom deluxe and only offered me an upgrade to a 2 bedroom presidential which hadn't been available for the first reservation I made. I know some of you will be wondering so I should explain that it wasn't a presidential reserve upgrade, but a regular presidential. Like OP said, sometimes it will offer you the option of both the one bedroom deluxe and the two bedroom presidential or presidential reserve for those who are PR owners but not this time when I needed just the one bedroom deluxe. Do I use more points to book the not upgraded one bedroom deluxe or take the upgraded two bedroom presidential for less points and hope they will be able to downgrade those two extra nights and keep us in the one bedroom deluxe for the whole stay? Yes the resorts can and will do that but it might not be possible if the resort was really full. Most times I would have been thrilled to get the better upgrade so I'm not complaining!

Since the new system it seems that the VC's are no longer allowed to go in and manually do anything even when the upgrade isn't working correctly. I remember in the old system that sometimes the upgrades just didn't work like they were supposed to and the VC's were allowed to go in and manually do it for you if you called. I know very little about programming but you don't have to know much to understand that a resort like Ocean Boulevard with 24 different unit options needs to be handled differently than a resort with 2 or 3. Then there are all the resorts that fall somewhere in between too. I was raised to believe it is easier and less work to just do it right the first time than to have to go back and do it over.